Spottiswoode condo killer litter: Man’s jail sentence reduced by 6 months to 5 years, following appeal

SINGAPORE — A 50-year-old man, who was previously given a jail sentence of five-and-a-half years in a killer litter case, had his jail term reduced by six months on Tuesday (Dec 20) after appealing the sentence. 

Andrew Gosling, an Australian, was found guilty of hurling a wine bottle from a condominium seventh-floor lift landing, which the struck a grandfather on the head and killed him in 2019.

After pleading guilty to one charge of causing the death of Nasiari Sunee by a rash act and causing grievous hurt to the victim’s wife, Madam Manisah Sitri, also by rash act, Gosling was given a jail sentence in April.

The court heard that he had demonstrated hostile thoughts about the Muslim community while drunk and wanted to startle Nasiari's family who was gathered at the barbecue pits near the fifth-floor swimming pool for a housewarming event.

The bottle hit 73-year-old Nasiari and then ricocheted and hit his then 69-year-old wife on the shoulder. He died in hospital the next day from his injuries, while his spouse was seriously injured.

THE APPEAL

Justice Chua Lee Ming, in delivering his decision on Tuesday after the defence counsel filed a Magistrate’s Appeal against the sentencing, said that the original aggregate sentence meted out by the State Courts “would not meet the ends of justice”.

He said that the total sentence exceeded the maximum term provided for the more serious offence of causing death by a rash act, which is punishable by up to five years' jail or a fine, or both. 

During the two-hour hearing that was held over Zoom, the defence led by Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan said that the original sentences should not run consecutively since the offences arose from the singular act of throwing one bottle into the crowd.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ben Mathias Tan argued, however, that there were two victims involved.

Justice Chua said the mere fact that the case involved two victims “does not in and of itself” mean that there were separate legal interests to be protected.

In the present case, it involved the invasion of the same legal interest of preventing rash acts of endangering life, he added. 

The underlying question is still whether a person ought to be doubly punished for offences occurring simultaneously or close together.

He said that this would often, or if not, bring into play moral considerations, and that the final analysis must be undertaken as a matter of common sense.

In this case, Gosling must have been fully aware of the risk that the bottle could have hit one or more people at the barbecue area, causing injury or death to potentially multiple people.

The defence counsel also addressed an aggravating factor taken into consideration during sentencing, which was Gosling’s display of religious hostility against Muslims.

He said that Principal District Judge Victor Yeo at the district court hearing had not sufficiently taken into consideration two psychiatrists' report.

The psychiatrists had stated that the hostility displayed was likely a product of Gosling’s intoxicated state and did not represent his true intentions, and that the offences were unlikely to be religiously motivated.

Justice Chua did not agree with the lawyer's argument, saying it was not true that the district court judge failed to adequately consider the psychiatrists’ report. He did take in the psychiatrists’ opinion that the offences were unlikely to be religiously motivated. 

However, what was considered was that immediately before or during the time of committing the offence, it was "an undisputed fact" that Gosling's conduct did show hostility towards Muslims such as uttering words that demonstrated religious hostility.

Rounding up his decision, Justice Chua said that in his view, the “full range of factual permutation” of the case must be taken into consideration in sentencing and that the aggregate sentence in this case should not exceed the maximum provided by the more serious offence.

Justice Chua reduced the jail sentence meted out for the first offence of causing death by a rash act from four years to three-and-a-half years.

The 18 months' jail term for the second offence of causing grievous hurt by a rash act was maintained, making it a total of five years.